John, The Apostle

John the Apostle

() the Apostle, and brother of the apostle James the greater (Mat 4:21; Mat 10:2; Mar 1:19; Mar 3:17; Mar 10:35; Luk 5:10; Luk 8:3; etc.).

I. Personal History.

1. Early Life. It is probable that he was born at Bethsaida, on the Lake of Galilee. The general impression left on us by the Gospel narrative is that he was younger than the brother whose name commonly precedes his (Mat 4:21; Mat 10:3; Mat 17:1, etc.; but compare Luk 9:28, where the order is inverted in most codices), younger than his friend Peter, possibly also than his Master. The life which was protracted to the time of Trajan (Eusebius, H.E. 3, 23, following Irenaeus) can hardly have begun before the year B.C. 4 of the Dionysian era. The Gospels give us the name of his father Zebedaeus (Mat 4:21) and his mother Salome (comp. Mat 27:56 with Mar 15:40; Mar 16:1). Of the former we know nothing more. SEE ZEBEDEE. The traditions of the fourth century (Epiphan. 3, Hoer. 78) make the latter the daughter of Joseph by his first wife, and consequently half sister to our Lord. By some recent critics she has been identified with the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Joh 19:25 (Wieseler, in Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648). Ewald (Gesch. Israels, v. 171) adopts Wieseler’s conjecture, and connects it with his own hypothesis, that the sons of Zebedee, and our Lord, as well as the Baptist, were of the tribe of Levi. On the other hand, more sober critics, like Neander (Pflanz. u. Leit. p. 609 [4th ed.]) and Lcke (Johannes, 1, 9), reject both the tradition and the conjecture. SEE SALOME.

They lived, it may be inferred from Joh 1:44, in or near the same town as those who were afterwards the companions and partners of their children. SEE BETHSAIDA.

There, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the apostle and his brother grew up. The mention of the hired servants (Mar 1:20), of his mother’s substance ( , Luk 8:3), of his own house ( , Joh 19:27), implies a position removed by at least some steps from absolute poverty. The fact that the apostle was known to the high priest Caiaphas, as that knowledge was hardly likely to have begun after he had avowed himself the disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, suggests the probability of some early intimacy between the two men or their families. The name which the parents gave to their younger child was too common to serve as the ground of any special inference; but it deserves notice (1) that the name appears among the kindred of Caiaphas (Act 4:6); (2) that it was given to a priestly child, the son of Zacharias (Luk 1:13), as the embodiment and symbol of Messianic hopes. The frequent occurrence of the name at this period, unconnected as it was with any of the great deeds of the old heroic days of Israel, is indeed in itself significant as a sign of that yearning and expectation which then characterized not only the more faithful and devout (Luk 2:25; Luk 2:38), but the whole people. The prominence given to it by the wonders connected with the birth of the future Baptist may have imparted a meaning to it for the parents of the future evangelist which it would not otherwise have had. Of the character of Zebedeus we have hardly the slightest trace. He interposes no refusal when his sons are called on to leave him (Mat 4:21). After this he disappears from the scene of the Gospel history, and we are led to infer that he had died before his wife followed her children in their work of ministration. Her character meets us as presenting the same marked features as those which were conspicuous in her son. From her, who followed Jesus and ministered to him of her substance (Luk 8:3), who sought for her two sons that they might sit, one on his right hand, the other on his left, in his kingdom (Mat 20:20), he might well derive his strong affections, his capacity for giving and receiving love, his eagerness for the speedy manifestation of the Messiah’s kingdom. The early years of the apostle we may believe to have passed under this influence. He would be trained in all that constituted the ordinary education of Jewish boyhood. Though not taught in the schools of Jerusalem, and therefore, in later life, liable to the reproach of having no recognized position as a teacher, no Rabbinical education (Act 4:13), he would yet be taught to read the Law and observe its precepts, to feed on the writings of the prophets with the feeling that their accomplishment was not far off.

2. Incidents recorded of him in the New Testament. The ordinary life of the fisherman of the Sea of Galilee was at last broken in upon by the news that a prophet had once more appeared. The voice of John the Baptist was heard in the wilderness of Judaea, and the publicans, peasants, soldiers, and fishermen of Galilee gathered round him. Among these were the two sons of Zebedaeus and their friends. With them perhaps was One whom as yet they knew not. They heard, it may be, of John’s protests against the vices of their own ruler against the hypocrisy of Pharisees and Scribes. But they heard also, it is clear, words which spoke to them of their own sins of their own need of a deliverer. The words Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins imply that those who heard them would enter into the blessedness of which they spoke. Assuming that the unnamed disciple of Joh 1:37-40 was the evangelist himself, we are led to think of that meeting, of the lengthened interview that followed it as the starting point of the entire devotion of heart and soul which lasted through his whole life. Then Jesus loved him as he loved all earnest seekers after righteousness and truth (comp. Mar 10:21). The words of that evening, though unrecorded, were mighty in their effect. The disciples (John apparently among them) followed their new teacher to Galilee (Joh 1:44), were with him, as such, at the marriage feast of Cana (Joh 2:2), journeyed with him to Capernaum, and thence to Jerusalem (Joh 2:12; Joh 2:22), came back through Samaria (Joh 4:8), and then. for some uncertain interval of time, returned to their former occupations. The uncertainty which hangs over the narratives of Mat 4:18 and Luk 5:1-11 (comp. the arguments for and against their relating to the same events in Lampe, Comment. ad Joann. 1, 20), leaves us in doubt whether they received a special call to become fishers of men once only or twice. In either case they gave up the employment of their life and went to do a work like it, and yet unlike, in God’s spiritual kingdom. From this time they take their place among the company of disciples. Only here and there are there traces of individual character, of special turning points in their lives. Soon they find themselves in the number of the Twelve who are chosen, not as disciples only, but as their Lord’s delegates representatives apostles. In all the lists of the Twelve those four names of the sons of Jonah and Zebedaeus stand foremost. They come within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends, and are as the .

The three, Peter, James, and John, are with him when none else are, in the chamber of death (Mar 5:37), in the glory of the transfiguration (Mat 17:1), when he forewarns them of the destruction of the Holy City (Mar 13:3, Andrew, in this instance, with them), in the agony of Gethsemane. Peter is throughout the leader of that band; to John belongs the yet more memorable distinction of being the disciple whom Jesus loved. This love is returned with a more single, undivided heart by him than by any other. If Peter is the , John is the (Grotius, Prolegom. in Joann.). Some striking facts indicate why this was so; what the character was which was thus worthy of the love of Jesus of Nazareth.. They hardly sustain the popular notion, fostered by the received types of Christian art, of a nature gentle, yielding, feminine. The name Boanerges (Mar 3:17) implies a vehemence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who had it the might of Sons of Thunder. That spirit broke out once and again when they joined their mother in asking for the highest places in the kingdom of their Master, and declared that they were ready to face the dark terrors of the cup that he drank, and the baptism that he was baptized with (Mat 20:20-24; Mar 10:35-41) when they rebuked one who cast out devils in their Lord’s name because he was not one of their company (Luk 9:49) when they sought to call down fire from heaven upon a village of the Samaritans (Luk 9:54). About this time Salome, as if her husband had died, takes her place among the women who followed Jesus in Galilee (Luk 8:3), ministering to him of their substance, and went up with him in his last journey to Jerusalem (Luk 22:55). Through her, we may well believe, John first came to know Mary Magdalene, whose character he depicts with such a life-like touch, and that other Mary, to whom he was afterwards to stand in so close and special a relation. The fullness of his narrative of what the other evangelists omit (John 11) leads to the conclusion that he was united also by some special ties of intimacy to the family of Bethany. It is not necessary to dwell at length on the familiar history of the Last Supper. What is characteristic is that he is there, as ever, the disciple whom Jesus loved; and, as the chosen and a favored friend, reclines at table with his head upon his Master’s breast (Joh 13:23). To him the eager Peter they had been sent together to prepare the supper (Luk 22:8) makes signs of impatient questioning that he should ask what was not likely to be answered if it came from any other (Joh 13:24). As they go out to the Mount of Olives the chosen three are nearest to their Master. They only are within sight or hearing of the conflict in Gethsemane (Mat 26:37).

When the betrayal is accomplished, Peter and John, after the first moment of confusion, follow afar off, while the others simply seek safety in a hasty flight (Joh 18:15). The personal acquaintance which existed between John and Caiaphas enabled him to gain access both for himself and Peter, but the latter remains in the porch, with the officers and servants, while John himself apparently is admitted to the council chamber, and follows Jesus thence, even to the praetorium of the Roman procurator. (Joh 18:16; Joh 18:19; Joh 18:28). Thence, as if the desire to see the end, and the love which was stronger than death, sustained him through all the terrors and sorrows of that day, he followed accompanied probably by his own mother, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene to the place of crucifixion. The teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother’s duty. He is to be as a son to the mother who is left desolate (Joh 19:26-27). The Sabbath that followed was spent, it would appear, in the same company. He receives Peter, in spite of his denial, on the old terms of friendship. It is to them that Mary Magdalene first runs with the tidings of the emptied sepulchre (Joh 20:2); they are the first to go together to see what the strange words meant. Not without some bearing on their respective characters is the fact that John is the most impetuous, running on most eagerly to the rock tomb; Peter, the least restrained by awe, the first to enter in and look (Joh 20:4-6). For at least eight days they continued in Jerusalem (Joh 20:26).

Then, in the interval between the resurrection and the ascension, we find them still together on the Sea of Galilee (Joh 21:1), as though they would calm the eager suspense of that period of expectation by a return to their old calling and their old familiar haunts. Here, too, there is a characteristic difference. John is the first to recognize in the dim form seen in the morning twilight the presence of his risen Lord; Peter the first to plunge, into the water and swim towards the shore where he stood calling to them (Joh 21:7). The last words of the Gospel reveal to us the deep affection which united the two friends. It is not enough for Peter to know his own future. That at once suggests the question And what shall this man do? (Joh 21:21). The history of the Acts shows the same union. They, are of course together at the ascension and on the day of Pentecost. Together they enter the Temple as worshippers (Act 3:1), and protest against the threats of the Sanhedrim (Act 4:13). They are fellow workers in the first great step of the Church’s expansion. The apostle whose wrath had been roused by the unbelief of the Samaritans overcomes his national exclusiveness, and receives them as his brethren (Act 8:14). The persecution which was pushed on by Saul of Tarsus did not drive him or any of the apostles from their post (Act 8:1). When the persecutor came back as the convert, he, it is true, did not see him (Gal 1:19), but this, of course, does not involve the inference that he had left Jerusalem. The sharper though shorter persecution which followed under Herod Agrippa brought a great sorrow to him in the martyrdom of his brother (Act 12:2). His friend was driven to seek safety in flight. Fifteen years after Paul’s first visit he was still at Jerusalem, and helped to take part in the great settlement of the controversy between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians (Act 15:6). His position and reputation there were those of one ranking among the chief pillars of the Church (Gal 2:9). Of the work of the apostle during this period we have hardly the slightest trace. There may have been special calls to mission work like that which drew him to Samaria. There may have been the work of teaching, organizing, exhorting the churches of Judea. His fulfilment of the solemn charge intrusted to him may have led him to a life of loving and reverent thought rather than to one of conspicuous activity. We may, at all events, feel sure that it was a time in which the natural elements of his character, with all their fiery energy, became purified and mellowed, rising step by step to that high serenity which we find perfected in the closing portion of his life. Here, too, we may, without much hesitation, accept the traditions of the Church as recording a historic fact when they ascribe to him a life of celibacy (Tertull. De Monog. c. 13. The absence of his name from 1Co 9:5 tends to the same conclusion. It harmonizes with all we know of his character to think of his heart as so absorbed in the higher and diviner love that there was no room left for the lower and the human.

3. Sequel of his Career. The traditions of a later age come in, with more or less show of likelihood, to fill up the great gap which separates the apostle of Jerusalem from the bishop of Ephesus. It was a natural conjecture to suppose that he remained in Judaea till the death of the Virgin released him from his trust. When this took place we can only conjecture. The hypothesis of Baronius and Tillemont, that the Virgin accompanied him to Ephesus, has not even the authority of tradition (Lampe, 1, 51). There are no signs of his being at Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s last visit (Acts 21). The pastoral epistles set aside the notion that he had come to Ephesus before the work of the apostle of the Gentiles was brought to its conclusion. Out of many contradictory statements, fixing his departure under Claudius, or Nero, or as late even as Domitian, we have hardly any data for doing more than rejecting the two extremes. Lampe fixes A.D. 66, when Jerusalem was besieged by the Roman forces under Cestius, as the most probable date. Nor is it certain that his work as an apostle was transferred at once from Jerusalem to Ephesus. A tradition current in the time of Augustine (Quoest. Evang. 2, 19), and embodied in some MSS. of the New Test., represented the 1st Epistle of John as addressed to the Parthians, and so far implied that his apostolic work had brought him into contact with them. In the earlier tradition which made the apostles formally partition out the world known to them, Parthia falls to the lot of Thomas, while John receives Proconsular Asia (Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 3, 1). In one of the legends connected with the Apostles’ Creed, Peter contributes the first article, John the second; but the tradition appears with great variations as to time and order (comp. Pseudo-August. Serm. 240, 241). When the form of the aged disciple meets us again in the twilight of the apostolic age, we are still left in great doubt as to the extent of his work and the circumstances of his outward life. Assuming the authorship of the Epistles and the Revelation to be his, the facts which the New Test. writings assert or imply are:

(1) that, having come to Ephesus, some persecution, local or general, drove him to Patmos (Rev 1:9);

(2) that the seven churches, of which Asia was the center, were special objects of his solicitude (Rev 1:11); that in his work he had to encounter men who denied the truth on which his faith rested (1Jn 4:1; 2Jn 1:7), and others who, with a railing and malignant temper, disputed his authority (3Jn 1:9-10). If to this we add that he must have outlived all, or nearly all, of those who had been the friends and companions even of his maturer years that this lingering age gave strength to an old imagination that his Lord had promised him immortality (Joh 21:23) that, as if remembering the actual words which had been thus perverted, the longing of his soul gathered itself up in the cry, Even so, come, Lord Jesus (Rev 22:20) that from some who spoke with authority he received a solemn attestation of the confidence they reposed in him (Joh 21:24) we have stated all that has any claim to the character of historical truth. The picture which tradition fills up for us has the merit of being full and vivid, but it blends together, without much regard to harmony, things probable and improbable. He is shipwrecked off Ephesus (Simeon Metaph. In vita Johann. c. 2; Lampe, 1, 47), and arrives there in time to check the progress of the heresies which sprang up after Paul’s departure. Then, or at a later period, he numbers among his disciples men like Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius (Jerome, De vir. Illust. c. 17). In the persecution under Domitian he is taken to Rome, and there, by his boldness, though not by death, gains the crown of martyrdom. The boiling oil into which he is thrown has no power to hurt him (Tertull. De Proescript. c. 36).

The scene of the supposed miracle was outside the Porta Latina, and hence the Western Church commemorates it by the special festival of St. John Port. Latin. on May 6th. He is then sent to labor in the mines, and Patmos is the place of his exile (Victorinus, In Revelation 9; Lampe, 1, 66). The accession of Nerva frees him from danger, and he returns to Ephesus. There he settles the canon of the Gospel history by formally attesting the truth of the first three Gospels, and writing his own to supply what they left wanting (Euseb. H.E. 3, 24). The elders of the Church are gathered together, and he, as by a sudden inspiration, begins with the wonderful opening, In the beginning was the word (Jerome, De vir. Illust. 29). Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. He refuses to pass under the same roof (that of the public baths of Ephesus) with their foremost leader, lest the house should fall down on them and crush them (Iren. 3, 3; Euseb. H.E. 3, 28; 4, 14). Eusebius and Irenaeus make Cerinthus the heretic. In Epiphanius (Hoer. 30, c. 24) Ebion is the hero of the story. To modern feelings the anecdote may seem at variance with the character of the apostle of love, but it is hardly more than the development in act of the principle of 2Jn 1:10. To the mind of Epiphanius there was a difficulty of another kind: nothing less than a special inspiration could account for such a departure from an ascetic life as going to a bath at all. Through his agency the great temple of Artemis is at last reft of its magnificence, and even (!) leveled with the ground (Cyril. Alex. Orat. de Mar. Virg.; Nicephor. H.E. 2, 42; Lampe, 1, 90). He introduces and perpetuates the Jewish mode of celebrating the Easter feast (Eusebius, H.E. 3, 3) at Ephesus, if not before, as one who was a true priest of the Lord. bearing on his brow the plate of gold (; compare Suicer. Thes. s.v.) with the sacred name engraved on it, which was the badge of the Jewish pontiff (Polycrates, in Eusebius, H.E. 3, 31; 5, 24).

In strange contrast with this ideal exaltation, a later tradition tells how the old man used to find pleasure in the playfulness and fondness of a favorite bird, and defended himself against the charge of unworthy trifling by the familiar apologue of the bow that must sometimes be unbent (Cassian. Collat. 24, c. 2). More true to the N.T. character of the apostle is the story, told with so much power and beauty by Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, c. 42), of his special and loving interest in the younger members of his flock of his eagerness and courage in the attempt to rescue one of them who had fallen into evil courses. The scene of the old and loving man, standing face to face with the outlaw chief whom, in days gone by, he had baptized, and winning him to repentance is one which we could gladly look on as belonging to his actual life part of a story which is, in Clement’s words . Not less beautiful is that other scene which comes before us as the last act of his life. When all capacity to work and teach is gone when there is no strength even to stand the spirit still retains its power to love, and the lips are still opened to repeat, without change and variation, the command which summed up all his Master’s will, Little children, love one another (Jerome, in Galatians 6). Other stories, more apocryphal and less interesting, we may pass over rapidly. That he put forth his power to raise the dead to life (Euseb. H.E. 5, 18); that he drank the cup of hemlock which was intended to cause his death, and suffered no harm from it (Pseudo-August. Soliloq.; Isidor. Hispal. De Morte Sanct. c. 73); that when he felt his death approaching he gave orders for the construction of his own sepulchre, and when it was finished calmly laid himself down in it and died (Augustin. Tract. in Joann. 124); that after his interment there were strange movements in the earth that covered him (ib.); that when the tomb was subsequently opened it was found empty (Niceph. H.E. 2, 42); that he was reserved to reappear again in conflict with the personal antichrist in the last days (Suicer, Thes. s.v. ) these traditions, for the most part, indicate little else than the uncritical spirit of the age in which they passed current. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it range from A.D. 89 to A.D. 120 (Lampe, 1, 92).

See Perionii Vitoe Apostol. p. 95 sq.; Edzard De Joanne Cerinthi proesentiam futgiente. (Viteb. 1732); Schwollmann, Comment. de Jo. in Pathimo exilio (Halle, 1757); Hering, Von d. Schule d. Apost. Joh. zu Ephesus (Bresl. 1774); Bishop, Life, etc., of St. John (London, 1827); Webb, The Beloved Disciple (Lond. 1848); Krummacher (in Life of Cornelius, etc.); Lee, Life of St. John (N.Y. 1854); Macfarlane, The Disciple whom Jesus loved (Lond. 1855); Kienkel, Der Apostel Johannes (Berlin, 1871).

II. The most prominent traits of John’s character appear to have been an ardent temperament and a delicacy of sentiment. These combined to produce that devoted attachment to his Master which leads him to detail all his discourses and vindicate his character on all occasions. Yet, with all his mildness and amiability of temper doubtless, in part, the fruit of divine grace, for we trace also a degree of selfishness in Mar 9:38; Mar 10:35 he was not altogether feminine in disposition, but possessed an energy and force of mind which gave him the title of one of the sons of thunder (Mar 3:17), bursting forth in vehement language in his writings and on one occasion calling even for rebuke (Luk 9:54-55). SEE BOANERGES. It was these traits of mind that enabled him to take so profound and comprehensive a view of the nature and office of the incarnate Son of God, evident in all his writings, and especially developed in the introduction to his Gospel.

See Von Melle, Entwurf einer Lebensbeschreibung und Charakteristik d. Apost. Joh. (Heidelb. 1808); Niemeyer, Charakteristik der Bibel, 1, 303 sq.; Wernsdorf, Meletema de Elogio filior. tonitrui (Helmst. 1755); Obbar, De Temperamento Joa. cholerlico (Gtt. 1738); F. Trench, Life and Character of John the Evangelist (London, 1850); Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apost. Age, serm. 4; W. Grimm, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encycl. sect. 2, pt. 22, p. 1 sq.; Ad. Monod, Sermons (La Parole vivante) (Par. 1858); Pressense, Apostolic AEra, p. 415.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

John the Apostle

Younger than his brother James; being named after him in Matthew and Mark, the earlier Gospels; but Luke (Luk 9:28; Act 1:13, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts), writing when John had gained so much greater prominence in the church, ranks him in the order of church esteem, not that of nature. Youngest of the twelve, probably of Bethsaida upon the sea of Galilee (Joh 1:44; Luk 5:10), the town of their partners Simon and Andrew. Caspari (Chronicles and Geogr., Introd. to Life of Christ) accounts for John’s brief notice of Christ’s Galilean ministry and fuller notices of His ministry in Judaea thus: Jewish tradition alleges that all Israelites dwelling in the Holy Land were entitled to fish in the sea of Gennesaret a month before each Passover, and to use the fish for the many guests received at the feast in Jerusalem. John used to stay in Galilee only during that month. However, no hint of this occurs in our Gospels. Zebedee his father owned a fishing vessel, and had “hired servants” (Mar 1:20).

Salome his mother ministered to the Lord “of her substance” (Luk 8:3), and was one of the women who came with Him in His last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luk 23:55; Luk 24:1; Mar 16:1), and after His death bought spices to anoint His body. John’s acquaintance with the high priest (Joh 18:15) had been in early life, for it is not likely it would commence after he had become disciple of the despised Galilean. Hence, probably arose his knowledge of the history of Nicodemus which he alone records. John had a house of his own to which he took the Virgin mother, by our Lord’s dying charge (Joh 19:27). The name, meaning “the favor of God”, had become a favorite one in the age where there was a general expectation of Messiah, and members of the high priestly families bore it (Act 4:6). These hints all intimate that John belonged to the respectable classes, and though called by the council “unlearned and ignorant” he was not probably without education, though untrained in their rabbinical lore (Act 4:13).

Zebedee’s readiness to give up his son at Jesus’ call speaks well for his religious disposition. Salome went further, and positively ministered to Jesus. Even her ambitious request that her two sons, James and John, might sit on either side of our Lord in His coming kingdom shows that she was heartily looking for that kingdom. Such a mother would store her son’s memory with the precious promises of Old Testament. The book of Revelation in its temple imagery shows the deep impression which the altar, the incense, the priestly robes, and the liturgy had made on him. John’s first acquaintance with the Lord was when John Baptist pointed his two disciples Andrew and John to the Lamb of God. John followed Jesus to His place of sojourn. John probably accompanied Him on His homeward journey to Galilee from Jordan (John 1), and then to Jerusalem (John 2-3), again through Samaria to Galilee (4), and again to Jerusalem (5), for he describes as an eye witness. Resuming his fishing occupation he received his call to permanent discipleship after the miraculous draught of fish (Luk 5:10; Mat 4:18-22).

In the selection of the twelve subsequently the two sons of Jonas and Zebedee’s two sons stand foremost. Peter, James, and J. form the inner-most circle. They alone witnessed the raising of Jairus’ daughter, Jesus’ transfiguration, His agony in Gethsemane, and with the addition of Andrew heard His answer to their private inquiry as to when, and with what premonitory sign, His prediction of the overthrow of the temple should be fulfilled (Mar 13:3-4). Grotius designates Peter as the lover of Christ, John the lover of Jesus. John as a “son of thunder” (Mar 3:17) was not the soft and feminine character that he is often portrayed, but full of intense, burning zeal, ready to drink the Lord’s bitter cup and to be baptized with His fiery baptism (Isa 58:1; Jer 23:29; Mat 20:22; Luk 12:49-50), impatient of anyone in separation from Jesus’ company, and eager for fiery vengeance on the Samaritans who would not receive Him (Luk 9:49; Luk 9:53-54).

Nor was this characteristic restricted to his as yet undisciplined state; it appears in his holy denunciations long afterward (1Jo 2:18-22; 2Jo 1:7-11; 3Jo 1:9-10). Through his mother John gained his knowledge of the love of Mary Magdalene to the Lord, which he so vividly depicts (John 20). The full narrative of Lazarus’ restoration to life (John 11) shows that he was an eye witness, and probably was intimate with the sisters of Bethany. He and Peter followed Jesus when apprehended, while the rest fled (Joh 18:15), even as they had both together been sent to prepare the Passover (Luk 22:8) the evening before, and as it was to John reclining in Jesus’ bosom (compare Son 8:3; Son 8:6) that Peter at the supper made eager signs to get him to ask our Lord who should be the traitor (Joh 13:24). While Peter remained in the porch John was in the council chamber (Joh 18:16-28). John, the Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdalene accompanied the Saviour to Calvary, and to him Jesus committed as to a brother the care of His sorrowing mother.

Peter and John were in the same abode the ensuing sabbath, and to them Mary Magdalene first runs with the tidings of the tomb being empty. Ardent love lent wings to John’s feet, so that he reached the tomb first; but reverent awe restrained him from entering. Peter more impulsive was first to enter (Joh 20:4-6). For at least eight days they stayed at Jerusalem (Joh 20:26). Then they appear in Galilee (John 21) again associated in their former occupation on the sea of Galilee. As yet they were uncertain whether the Lord’s will was that they should continue their apostolic ministrations or not; and in the interval their livelihood probably necessitated their resuming their fishing occupation, which moreover would allay their mental agitation at that time of suspense. John with deeper spiritual intuition was first to recognize Jesus in the morning twilight, Peter first in plunging into the water to reach Him (Joh 21:7). Peter’s bosom friendship for John suggested the question, after learning his own future, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” (Joh 21:21).

In that undesigned coincidence which confirms historic truth, the Book of Acts (Act 3:1; Act 4:13; Act 8:14) represents the two associated as in the Gospels; together they enter the temple and meet the impotent man at the Beautiful gate; together they witness before the council; together they confirm in the faith, and instrumentally impart the Holy Spirit by laying hands on, the deacon Philip’s converts in Samaria, the very place where John once would have called down fire to consume the Samaritans. So complete was the triumph of grace over him! At Stephen’s death he and the other apostles alone stayed at. Jerusalem when all the rest were scattered. At Paul’s second visit there John (esteemed then with James and Peter a “pillar”) gave him the right hand of fellowship, that he should go to the pagan and they to the circumcision (Gal 2:9). John took part in the first council there concerning circumcision of the Gentiles (Act 15:6). No sermon of his is recorded, Peter is always the spokesman.

Contemplation and communion with God purified the fire of his character, and gave him that serene repose which appears in his writings, which all belong to the later portion of his life. He is not mentioned as married in 1Co 9:5, where, had he been so, it would probably have been stated. Under Domitian (about A.D. 95) John was banished to Patmos (Rev 1:9; Rev 1:11). “I John … your companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle … Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The seven churches of western Asia were under his special care. In the Acts, epistles to Ephesians, and Timothy, recording Paul’s ministry in connection with Ephesus, no mention occurs of John being there. Again John does not appear in Jerusalem when Paul finally visited it A.D. 60. Probably he left Jerusalem long before settling at Ephesus, and only moved there after Paul’s martyrdom, A.D. 66. Paul had foreseen the rise of Gnostic heresy in the Ephesian region.

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Act 20:30; compare 1Ti 1:6-7; 1Ti 1:19-20; 1Ti 4:1-7; 2Ti 1:13; 2Ti 1:15; 2Ti 2:16-18; 2Ti 2:3; Tit 1:9; Tit 1:16). These heresies, as yet in seminal form, John in his Gospel and epistles counteracts (John 1; 1Jo 4:1; 1Jo 2:18-22; 2Jo 1:7; 2Jo 1:9-11; 3Jo 1:9-10). His tone is meditative and serene, as contrasted with Paul’s logical and at the same time ardent style, His sharp reproof of Diotrephes accords with the story of his zeal against error, reported as from Polycarp, that entering the public baths of Ephesus he heard that Cerinthus was there; instantly he left the building lest it should fall while that enemy of the truth was within. In John’s view there is no neutrality between Christ and antichrist. Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvus?) reports of John as a careful pastor, that he commended a noble looking youth in a city near Ephesus to the bishop. The latter taught, and at last baptized, the youth.

Returning some time afterward John said to the bishop: “restore the pledge which I and the Saviour entrusted to you before the congregation.” The bishop with tears replied: “he is dead … dead to God … a robber!” John replied, “to what a keeper I have entrusted my brother’s soul!” John hastened to the robber’s fortress. The sentinels brought him before their captain. The latter fled from him: “why do you flee from me, your father, an unarmed old man? You have yet a hope of life. I will yet give an account to Christ of you. If need be, I will gladly die for you.” John never left him until he had rescued him from sin and restored him to Christ. Jerome records as to his characteristic love, that when John, being too feeble through age to walk to the Christian assemblies, was carried there by young men, his only address was: “little children, love one another.” When asked why he kept repeating the same words he replied, “because this is the Lord’s command, and enough is done when this is done.”

John’s thought and feelings became so identified with his Lord’s that his style reflects exactly that of Jesus’ deeper and especially spiritual discourses, which he alone records. He lives in the unseen, spiritual, rather than in the active world, His, designation, “‘ the divine,” expresses his insight into the glory of the eternal Word, the Only Begotten of the Father, made flesh, in opposition to mystical and docetic gnosticism which denied the reality of that manifestation and of Christ’s body. The high soaring eagle, gazing at the sun with unflinching eye, is the one of the four seraphim which represents John Irenaeus, Polycarp’s disciple (Adv. Haer. 2:39, Eusebius 3:23), states that John settled at Ephesus and lived to the time of Trajan. Tertullian’s story of his being cast into boiling oil at Rome and coming forth unhurt is improbable; none else records it; the punishment was one unheard of at Rome.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

JOHN THE APOSTLE

Various names have been used of John the apostle. Many of the people of his time referred to him as the disciple whom Jesus loved, perhaps because of his special relationship with Jesus (Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26-27). But Jesus himself often referred to John and his older brother James as sons of thunder, perhaps because they were sometimes impatient and over-zealous (Mar 3:17; Mar 10:35-40; Luk 9:49-56). John was one of the most highly respected leaders in the early church, and later generations knew him as the elder (2Jn 1:1; 3Jn 1:1). (For his writings see JOHN, GOSPEL OF; JOHN, LETTERS OF.) He has traditionally been regarded as the writer of the book of Revelation (Rev 1:1; Rev 1:9; Rev 22:8; see REVELATION, BOOK OF).

In the time of Jesus

Johns father was a fisherman named Zebedee (Mat 4:21). His mother, Salome, appears to have been the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40; Joh 19:25-27). The family lived in a town on the shores of Lake Galilee, where James and John worked as fishermen in partnership with another pair of brothers, Peter and Andrew (Mat 4:18-21; Luk 5:10).

Most likely all four men had responded to John the Baptists preaching. They became disciples of the Baptist and were part of that minority of true believers who looked expectantly for the promised Saviour. John was probably one of the two disciples (the other was Andrew) whom the Baptist first directed to Jesus Christ (Joh 1:35-40). Soon both pairs of brothers had become followers of Jesus (Mat 4:22), and later all four were included in Jesus group of twelve apostles (Mat 10:2). Peter, James and John developed into an inner circle of disciples who were particularly close to Jesus (Mar 5:37; Mar 9:2; Mar 14:33).

As the ministry of Jesus progressed, Peter became increasingly more prominent. James and John, with their mother, tried to outdo Peter by going to Jesus and asking him to give the top two positions in his kingdom to them. They received no such guarantee from Jesus; only a rebuke for their selfish ambition and a promise of persecution ahead (Mat 20:20-28). By the time Jesus ministry had come to an end, Peter and John were clearly the two leading apostles (Luk 22:8; Joh 19:26-27; Joh 20:2-9; Joh 21:20).

In the early church

After Jesus return to his Father, Peter and John provided the main leadership for the Jerusalem Christians. Their boldness amid persecution was an example to all (Act 1:13; Act 3:1-4; Act 3:11; Act 4:13-20; Act 5:40). They were the first Christian leaders to show publicly that God accepted non-Jewish converts into the church equally with Jewish converts (Act 8:14-17). Johns willingness to preach in Samaritan villages was in marked contrast to his hostility to Samaritans a few years earlier (Act 8:25; cf. Luk 9:52-56). With James the Lords brother they formed a representative group who expressed the Jerusalem churchs fellowship in the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9).

The Bible contains little information about Johns later activities, though there are early records outside the Bible that refer to him. According to these, John lived to a very old age (as Jesus had foretold; Joh 21:20-23) and spent most of his later years in Ephesus. From there he wrote his Gospel and the three letters that bear his name. It seems also that he was imprisoned on Patmos, an island off the coast from Ephesus, from where the book of Revelation was written (Rev 1:9).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

John The Apostle

JOHN THE APOSTLE.The materials for a life of St. John may be divided into three parts: (1) The specific information given in the canonical Scriptures; (2) early and well-attested tradition concerning him; (3) later traditions of a legendary character, which cannot be accepted as history, but which possess an interest and significance of their own. But when all the evidence on the subject is gathered, it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of what was in all probability a long life and an unspeakably important ministry. The present article must he taken in conjunction with those that follow, in view of the controversies which have arisen concerning the authorship of the Johannine writings.

1. The Scripture data.John was a son of Zebedee, a master-fisherman in good position, plying his craft in one of the towns on the Lake of Galilee, possibly Bethsaida. It is probable that his mother was Salome, one of the women who ministered to Christ in Galilee (Mar 15:41), a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This may be inferred from a comparison of Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40; Mar 16:1 with Joh 19:25.

The last passage is best understood as naming four women who stood by the Cross of JesusHis mother, His mothers sister Salome, Mary wife of Clopas who was also mother of James and Joses, and Mary Magdalene. The interpretation which would find only three persons in the list, and identify Mary of Clopas with the sister of Jesus mother, is open to the objection that two sisters would have the same name, and it involves other serious difficulties.

In Joh 1:40 two disciples are mentioned as having heard the testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus and having accompanied the new Teacher to His home. One of these was Andrew, and it has been surmised that the other was John himself. If this was so, the incident must be understood as constituting the very beginning of Johns discipleship.

In Mat 4:18-22, Mar 1:16-20 an account is given in almost the same words of the call of four fishermen to follow Jesus. Two of these were John and his elder brother James, who were with their father in a boat on the Lake of Galilee, mending their nets. In Luk 5:1-11 a different account of the call is given. Nothing is said of Andrew; Peter is the principal figure in the scene of the miraculous draught of fishes, while James and John are mentioned only incidentally as partners with Simon. Directly or indirectly, however, we are told that to John, whilst engaged in his craft, the summons was given to leave his occupation and become a fisher of men. The call was immediately obeyed, and constitutes an intermediate link between the initial stage of discipleship and the appointment to be one of twelve apostles. In the lists of the Twelve (Mat 10:2, Mar 3:14, Luk 6:13), John is always named as one of the first four, and in the course of Christs ministry he was one of an inner circle of three, who were honoured with special marks of confidence. These alone were permitted to be present on three occasionsthe raising of Jairus daughter, narrated in Mar 5:37, Luk 8:51; the Transfiguration, described in three accounts (Mat 17:1, Mar 9:2, Luk 9:28): and the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, mentioned by two of the Synoptists (Mat 26:37 and Mar 14:33). On one or perhaps two occasions Andrew was associated with these threepossibly at the healing of Peters wifes mother (Mar 1:29), and certainly at the interview described in Mar 13:3, when Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives and was asked privately concerning His prophecy of the overthrow of the Temple.

On two notable occasions the brothers James and John were associated together. They appear to have been alike in natural temperament. It is in this light that the statement of Mar 3:17 is generally understoodhe surnamed them Boanerges, which is Sons of thunder. Some uncertainty attaches to the derivation of the word, and the note added by the Evangelist is not perfectly clear. But no better explanation has been given than that the title was bestowed, perhaps by anticipation, in allusion to the zeal and vehemence of character which both the Apostles markedly exhibited on the occasions when they appear together. In Luk 9:54 they are represented as desirous to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan village which had refused hospitality to their Master. In Mar 10:35 they come to Christ with an eager request that to them might be allotted the two highest places in His Kingdom, and they profess their complete readiness to share with Him whatever suffering or trying experiences He may be called to pass through. According to Mat 20:20, their mother accompanied them and made the request, but Mat 20:24 shows that indignation was roused concerning the two brethren, and that the desire and petition were really their own. Once in the Gospels John is described as associated with Peter, the two being sent by Christ to make ready the Passover (Luk 22:8). Once he figures by himself alone, as making inquiry concerning a man who cast out demons in the name of Jesus, though he did not belong to the company of the disciples (Mar 9:38, Luk 9:49). As an indication of character this is to be understood as evincing zealous, but mistaken, loyalty. Christs reply was, Forbid him not; evidently John was disposed to manifest on this occasion the fiery intolerant zeal which he and his brother together displayed in Samaria. Though the words ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of do not form part of the best-attested text in Luk 9:1-62, they doubtless describe the kind of rebuke with which on both occasions the Master found it necessary to check the eagerness of a disciple who loved his Master well, but not wisely.

In the early part of the Acts, John is associated by name with Peter on three occasions. One was the healing of the lame man by the Temple gate (Act 3:4). The next was their appearance before the Sanhedrin in ch. 4, when they were found to be men untrained in Rabbinical knowledge, mere private persons with no official standing, and were also recognized by some present as having been personal followers of Jesus, and seen in His immediate company. In Act 8:15 we read that the two were sent by their brother-Apostles to Samaria, after Philip had exercised his evangelistic ministry there. Many had been admitted into the Church by baptism, and the two Apostles completed the reception by prayer and the laying on of hands, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. These typical instances show that at the outset of the history of the Church Peter and John came together to the front and were recognized as co-leaders, though they were very different in personal character, and Peter appears always to have been the spokesman. This note of personal leadership is confirmed by the incidental reference of Paul in Gal 2:9, where James (not the son of Zebedee), Cephas, and John are reputed to be pillars in the Church at Jerusalem.

Our knowledge of Johns history and character is largely increased, and the interest in his personality is greatly deepened, if he is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved, the author of the Fourth Gospel, and the John of the Apocalypse. Both these points are strongly contested in modern times, though the identification is supported by an early, wide-spread, and steadily maintained tradition. An examination of these questions will be found on pp. 479, 483, 797b; but here it may be pointed out what additional light is shed on Johns life and character if his authorship of the Fourth Gospel is admitted. In Joh 13:23 the disciple whom Jesus loved is spoken of as reclining in Jesus bosom at the Last Supper. The phrase implies that on the chief couch at the meal, holding three persons, Jesus was in the middle and John on His right hand, thus being brought more directly face to face with the Master than Peter, who occupied the left-hand place. This explains the expression of Joh 13:25 he, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus breast; as well as Peters beckoning mentioned in Joh 13:24. John has been also identified with the other disciple mentioned in Joh 18:15-16 as known to the high priest and having a right of entrance into the court, which was denied to Peter. Again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is described in Joh 19:26 as standing by the cross of Jesus with His mother, as receiving the sacred charge implied by the words, Woman, behold thy son! and Behold thy mother! and as thenceforth providing a home for one who was of his near kindred. In Joh 20:3 he accompanies Peter to the tomb of Jesus; and while he reached the sepulchre first, Peter was the first to enter in, but John was apparently the first to believe. In ch. 21 the two sons of Zebedee are among the group of seven disciples to whom our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, and again the disciple whom Jesus loved and Peter are distinguished: the one as the first to discern the risen Lord upon the shore, the other as the first to plunge into the water to go to Him. The Gospel closes with an account of Peters inquiry concerning the future of his friend and companion on so many occasions; and in Joh 19:35 as well as in Joh 21:24 it is noted that the disciple who wrote these things bore witness of that which he himself had seen, and that his witness is true.

It is only necessary to add that the John mentioned in Rev 1:4; Rev 1:9 as writing to the Seven Churches in Asia from the island of Patmos was identified by early tradition with the son of Zebedee. If this be correct, much additional light is cast upon the later life of the Apostle John (see Revelation [Book of]).

2. Early tradition.Outside the NT only vague tradition enables us to fill up the gap left by Christs answer to Peters question, Lord, and what shall this man do? We may gather that he spent several years in Jerusalem. After an indefinite interval he is understood to have settled in Ephesus. Eusebius states (HE iii. 18, 20) that during the persecution of Domitian the apostle and evangelist John was banished to Patmos, and that on the accession of Nerva (a.d. 96) he returned from the island and took up his abode in Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition (lit. the word of the ancients among us). Tertullian mentions a miraculous deliverance from a cauldron of boiling oil to which John had been condemned during a persecution in Rome, presumably under Domitian. Eusebius further states that John was living in Asia and governing the churches there as late as the reign of Trajan. He bases this assertion upon the evidence of Irenus and Clement of Alexandria. The former says that all the elders associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness, and that he remained in Ephesus until the time of Trajan. Clement recites at length the well-known touching incident concerning St. John and the young disciple who fell into evil ways and became the chief of a band of robbers, as having occurred when after the tyrants death he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus. Tertullian confirms the tradition of a residence in Ephesus by quoting the evidence of the Church of Smyrna that their bishop Polycarp was appointed by John (de Pr. Hr. 32). Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus towards the end of the 2nd cent., in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, speaks of one among the great lights in AsiaJohn, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate, as having fallen asleep at Ephesus. The Muratorian Fragment, which dates about a.d. 180, records an account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel, to the effect that John wrote it in obedience to a special revelation made to himself and Andrew. This story is somewhat mythical in character and is not elsewhere confirmed, but it proves the early prevalence of the belief in the Apostolic origin of the Gospel. Irenus states that the Gospel was written specially to confute unbelievers like Cerinthus, and tells, on the authority of those who had heard it from Polycarp, the familiar story that St. John refused to remain under the same roof with the arch-heretic, lest the building should fall down upon him. Ephesus is said to have been the scene of this incident. All traditions agree that he lived to a great age, and it is Jerome (in Gal 6:10) who tells of his being carried into the church when unable to walk or preach, and simply repeating the words, Little children, love one another. Christs enigmatical answer to Peter, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? led, as Joh 21:23 indicates, to the belief that John would not die, but would be translated.

Still, in spite of the record, the legend lingered long in the Church, and is mentioned by Augustine, that though apparently dead, the beloved Apostle was only asleep, and that the dust upon his tomb rose and fell with his breathing. The poet Browning, in his Death in the Desert, adopts the ancient tradition concerning the Apostles great age and lingering death, and imagines him recalled from a deep trance and the very borderland of the grave to deliver a last inspired message.

The universal belief of the early Church that St. John maintained a prolonged ministry in Ephesus has never been challenged till recent years. The arguments adduced against it, though quite inadequate to set aside positive evidence, have been accepted by critics of weight, and at least deserve mention. The chief fact of importance urged is the silence of writers who might well be expected to make some reference to it. Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, and Ignatius in writing to the Ephesians, refer to Paul and his writings, but not to John or his ministry. Clement of Rome, writing about 9395 concerning the Apostles and their successors, makes no reference to John as an eminent survivor, but speaks of the Apostolic age as if completely past. If John did labour in Asia for a generation, and was living in the reign of Trajan, it is not unnatural to expect that fuller reference to the fact would be found in the writings of the sub-Apostolic Fathers. But the reply is twofold. First, the argument from silence is always precarious. The literature of the early years of the 2nd cent. is very scanty, and little is known of the circumstances under which the fragmentary documents were written or of the precise objects of the writers. The silence of the Acts of the Apostles in the 1st cent., and of Eusebius in the 4th, is in many respects quite as remarkable as their speech and much more inexplicable. It is quite impossible for the most acute critic in the 20th cent. to reproduce the conditions of an obscure period, and to understand precisely why some subjects of little importance to us are discussed in its literature and others of apparently greater significance ignored.

It is the weight of positive evidence, however, on which the tradition really rests. Irenus, in a letter to Florinus preserved for us by Eusebius, describes how as a boy he had listened to the blessed Polycarp, and had heard the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And lest his memory should he discredited, he tells his correspondent that he remembers the events of that early time more clearly than those of recent years; for what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it. It is incredible that a writer brought so near to the very person of John, and having heard his words through only one intermediary, should have been entirely in error concerning his ministry in Asia. Polycrates, again, a bishop of the city in which St. John had long resided and laboured, wrote of his ministry there after an interval not longer than that which separates our own time from (say) the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 or the battle of Waterloo. His testimony obviously is not that of himself alone, it must represent that of the whole Ephesian Church; and what Irenus remembered as a boy others of the same generation must have remembered according to their opportunities of knowledge. The explicit testimony of three writers like Polycrates, Irenus, and Clement of Alexandria carries with it the implicit testimony of a whole generation of Christians extending over a very wide geographic area. The silence of others notwithstanding, it is hardly credible that these should have been mistaken on a matter of so much importance. The theory that confusion had arisen between John the Apostle and a certain John the Elder is discussed in a subsequent article (see p. 483), but it would seem impossible that a mistake on such a subject could be made in the minds of those who were divided from the events themselves by so narrow an interval as that of two, or at most three, generations.

3. Later traditions.It is only, however, as regards the main facts of history that the testimony of the 2nd cent. may be thus confidently relied on. Stories of doubtful authenticity would gather round an honoured name in a far shorter period than seventy or eighty years. Some of these legends may well be true, others probably contain an element of truth, whilst others are the result of mistake or the product of pious imagination. They are valuable chiefly as showing the directions in which tradition travelled, and we need not draw on any of the interesting myths of later days in order to form a judgment on the person and character of John the Apostle, especially if he was in addition, as the Church has so long believed, St. John the Evangelist.

A near kinsman of Jesus, a youth in his early disciple ship, eager and vehement in his affection and at first full of ill-instructed ambitions and still undisciplined zeal, John the son of Zebedee was regarded by his Master with a peculiar personal tenderness, and was fashioned by that transforming affection into an Apostle of exceptional insight and spiritual power. Only the disciple whom Jesus loved could become the Apostle of love. Only a minute and delicate personal knowledge of Him who was Son of Man and Son of God, combined with a sensitive and ardent natural temperament and the spiritual maturity attained by long experience and patient brooding meditation on what he had seen and heard long before, could have produced such a picture of the Saviour of the world as is presented in the Fourth Gospel. The very silence of John the Apostle in the narratives of the Gospels and the Acts is significant. He moved in the innermost circle of the disciples, yet seldom opened his lips. His recorded utterances could all he compressed into a few lines. Yet he ardently loved and was beloved by his Master, and after He was gone it was given to the beloved disciple to tarry rather than to speak, or toil, or suffer, so that at the last he might write that which should move a world and live in the hearts of untold generations. The most Christ-like of the Apostles has left this legacy to the Churchthat without him it could not have adequately known its Lord.

W. T. Davison.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

John, The Apostle

Sources of the Life of John:

The sources for the life of the apostle John are of various kinds, and of different degrees of trustworthiness. There are the references in the Synoptic Gospels, which may be used simply and easily without any preliminary critical inquiry into their worth as sources; for these Gospels contain the common tradition of the early church, and for the present purpose may be accepted as trustworthy. Further, there are the statements in Acts and in Galatians, which we may use without discussion as a source for the life of John. There is next the universal tradition of the 2nd century, which we may use, if we can show that the John of Ephesus, who bulks so largely in the Christian literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, is identical with the son of Zebedee. Further, on the supposition that the son of Zebedee is the author of the Johannine writings of the New Testament, there is another source of unequaled value for the estimate of the life and character of the son of Zebedee in these writings. Finally, there is the considerable volume of tradition which gathered around the name of John of Ephesus, of which, picturesque and interesting though the traditions be, only sparing use can be made.

I. Witness of the New Testament.

Addressing ourselves first to the Synoptic Gospels, to Acts and to Galatians, we ask, What, from these sources, can we know of the apostle John? A glance only need be taken at the Johannine writings, more fully discussed elsewhere in relation to their author.

1. The Synoptic Gospels:

That John was one of the two sons of Zebedee, that he became one of the disciples of Jesus, that at His call he forsook all and followed Jesus, and was thereafter continuously with Jesus to the end, are facts familiar to every reader of the Synoptic Gospels. The call was given to John and to his brother James at the Sea of Galilee, while in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, and parallel passages). Come ye after me, said Jesus, and I will make you to become fishers of men (Mar 1:17; on the earlier call in Judea, Joh 1:35 ff, see below). That Zebedee was a man of considerable wealth may be inferred from the fact that he had hired servants with him (Mar 1:20), and that his wife was one of those women who ministered of their substance to Jesus and His disciples (Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56). Comparison of the latter passage with Mar 15:40, Mar 15:41 identifies the wife of Zebedee, John’s mother, with Salome, and it seems a fair inference from Joh 19:25, though all do not accept it, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Salome, the wife of Zebedee, were sisters. On this view, James and John were cousins of Jesus, and were also related to the family of John the Baptist. The name of John appears in all the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels (Mat 10:2 and parallels). While his name appears rarely in a position by itself, he is still one of the most prominent of the disciples. With Peter and James he is present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mar 5:37; Luk 8:51 ff). These three were also present at the transfiguration (Mt 17; Mk 9; Lk 9). They were nearest to the Lord at the agony of Gethsemane. In all these cases nothing characteristic of John is to be noted. He is simply present as one of the three, and therefore one of the most intimate of the disciples. But there is something characteristic in an incident recorded by Luke (Luk 9:54), in which James and John are represented as wishing to call down fire on a Sam village, which had refused them hospitality. From this can be inferred something of the earnestness, zeal, and enthusiasm of the brothers, and of their high sense of what was due to their Master. Peter, James, John, and Andrew are the four who asked Jesus about the prophecies He had uttered: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished? (Mar 13:4). Then there is the request of their mother as to the place she desired for her sons in the coming kingdom (Mar 10:35 ff). To Peter and John was entrusted the task of preparation for the keeping of the Passover (Luk 22:8). Once John stands alone, and asks what we may consider a characteristic question: Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us (Mar 9:38; Luk 9:49). From these notices we see that John was in the front rank of the disciples, and we see also that he was so far conscious of the position he held, and of the intimate connection he had with the Master. We note further that John was a young man of fiery zeal, and of a tendency toward intolerance and exclusiveness. The zeal and the intolerance are in evidence in the desire to call down fire upon the Samaritan village, and the tendency toward exclusiveness is manifested in the request of his mother as to the place her sons were to occupy in the kingdom. They desire to have the highest positions. These tendencies were not encouraged by Jesus. They were rebuked by Him once and again, but the tendencies reveal the men. In harmony with these notices of character and temperament is the name given to the brothers by Jesus, Boanerges, Sons of thunder (Mar 3:17), which, whatever else may be meant by it, means strength, unexpectedness, and zeal approaching to methods of violence.

2. Acts and Galatians:

John is found in company with Peter in the opening scenes in Acts. He is with Peter while the man at the gate was healed (Act 3:1 ff). He is with Peter on the mission to Samaria (Act 8:14 ff). He is with Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, at the interview with Paul recorded in Gal 2, and the three are described by Paul as the pillar apostles (Gal 2:9). This interview is of importance because it proves that John had survived his brother James, whose death is recorded in Acts 12; at all events that John and James were not killed by the Jews at the same time, as some now contend that they were. This contention is considered below.

3. The Johannine Writings: Gospel and Revelation:

Much is to be learned of the apostle John from the Fourth Gospel, assuming the Gospel to have been written by him. We learn from it that he was a disciple of John the Baptist (Joh 1:35), that he was one of the first six disciples called by Jesus in His early ministry in Judea (Joh 1:37-51), and that he was present at all the scenes which he describes in the Gospel. We find later that he had a home in Jerusalem, and was acquainted with many there. To that home he took Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom the dying Saviour entrusted to his care (Joh 19:26, Joh 19:27). Much more also we learn of him and of his history, for the Gospel is a spiritual biography, a record of the growth of faith on the part of the writer, and of the way in which his eyes were opened to see the glory of the Lord, until faith seems to have become vision. He was in the inner circle of the disciples, indeed, nearest of all to Jesus, the disciple whom Jesus loved (Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20), and, because of that love, became the apostle of love (see, further, JOHN, GOSPEL OF; JOHN, EPISTLES OF; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY).

The Book of Revelation, likewise traditionally ascribed to John, bears important witness to the apostle’s banishment in later life to the isle of Patmos in the Aegean (Joh 1:9). There he received the visions recorded in the book. The banishment probably took place in the reign of Domitian (see REVELATION), with whose practice it was entirely in consonance (on the severity of such exile, compare Sir W.M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, chapter viii). The testimony is of high importance in its bearing on the disputed question of John’s residence in Asia, a point now to be discussed.

II. Alleged Early Martyrdom of John: Criticism of Evidence.

1. Recent Denial of John’s Residence in Ephesus:

The consentient testimony of the church of the 2nd century is that the later years of John were spent at Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel, and gathered round him many disciples (see the evidence drawn out in detail in Godet, Commentary on Gospel of John, 43 ff; compare also Lightfoot, The School of Ephesus, in Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion). Before, however, we can use the traditions connected with this residence at Ephesus, it is needful to inquire into the statement alleged to be made by Papias that John, the son of Zebedee, was killed by the Jews at an early date. It is plain, that, if this statement is correct, the apostle could not be the author of the Johannine writings in the New Testament, universally dated near the end of the 1st century.

2. Grounds of Denial:

The evidence for the statement that John was early killed by the Jews is thus summed up by Dr. Moffatt: The evidence for the early martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee is, in fact, threefold: (a) a prophecy of Jesus preserved in Mar 10:39 = Mat 20:23, (b) the witness of Papias, and (c) the calendars of the church (Intro to Lit. of New Testament, 602). Our limits do not admit of an exhaustive examination of this so-called evidence, but, happily, an exhaustive examination is not needed.

(a) The first head proceeds on an assumption which is not warranted, namely, that a prophecy of Jesus would not be allowed to stand, if it were not evidently fulfilled. In the present instance, a literal fulfillment of the prophecy (The cup that I drink ye shall drink, etc.) is out of the question, for there is no hint that either James or John was crucified. We must therefore fall back on the primary meaning of martyrdom, and recognize a fulfillment of the prophecy in the sufferings John endured and the testimony he bore for the Master’s sake (thus Origen, etc.).

(b) Dr. Moffatt lays great stress on what he calls the testimony of Papias. But the alleged testimony of Papias is not found in any early authority, and then occurs in writers not of any great value from the point of view of critical investigation. It is found in a passage of Georgius Hamartolus (9th century), and is held to be corroborated by a fragment of an epitome (7th or 8th century) of the Chronicle of Philip Sidetes (5th century), a thoroughly untrustworthy writer. The passage from Georgius may be seen in convenient form in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, 513-19. It tells that John survived to the time of Nerva, quotes a saying of Papias that he was killed by the Jews, states that this was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus above referred to, and goes on to say, So the learned Origen affirms in his interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, that John was martyred, declaring that he had learnt the last from the successors of the apostles (Lightfoot, op. cit., 531). Fortunately, the statement of Origen can be tested, and it by no means, as Moffatt admits (op. cit., 604), bears out the meaning attached to it. Origen is of opinion that the prophecy of Jesus was sufficiently fulfilled by the fact of John’s banishment to Patmos and his sufferings there. This, according to him, is what tradition taught and what the prophecy meant. From the whole statement of Georgius, which expressly declares that John survived till the time of Nerva, nothing can be inferred in support of the so-called quotation from Papias. It is to be remembered that the writings of Papias were known to Irenaeus and to Eusebius, and it is inconceivable that, if such a statement was to be found in these, they would have ignored it, and have given currency to a statement contradictory to it. No stress, therefore, can be laid on the alleged quotation. We do not know its context, nor is there anything in the literature of the first 3 centuries corroborative of it. In the citation in the epitome of Philip, Papias is made to speak of John the divine (ho theologos). This title is not applied to John till the close of the 4th century.

(c) As regards the 3rd line of evidence instanced by Dr. Moffatt – church calendars, in which James and John are commemorated together as martyrs – it is even more worthless than the other two. On the nature and origin of these martyrologies, Dr. J. Drummond may be quoted: They were constructed in process of time out of local calendars. At some period in the 2nd half of the 5th century, a martyrology was formed by welding together a number of provincial calendars, Roman, Italian, Spanish, and Gallic, into what was in effect a general martyrology of Western Europe. At Nicomedia, about the year 350, a similar eastern martyrology was formed out of the local calendars, and this was translated with curtailments into Syriac at Edessa about the year 400. It is a copy of this, made in 411, which is now in the British Museum (Inquiry into Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 232). If this is a true account of the rise and origin of martyrologies we need not be surprised that Sir W. M. Ramsay speaks as follows: That James and John, who were not slain at the same time, should be commemorated together, is the flimsiest conceivable evidence that John was killed early in Jerusalem. The bracketing together of the memory of apostles who had some historical connection in life, but none in death, must be regarded as the worst side, historically speaking, of the martyrologies (The First Christian Century, 49, note).

III. The Ephesian Traditions.

1. John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter:

Thus the early traditions of the churches are available for the life of John the son of Zebedee. But there still remain many blank spaces in that life. After the reference to the pillar apostles in Gal, silence falls on the life of John, and we know nothing of his life and activity until we read of his banishment to Patmos, and meet with those references to the old man at Ephesus, which occur in the Christian literature of the 2nd century. One point of interest relates to the (genuine) quotation from Papias, preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), regarding a Presbyter John, a disciple of the Lord, who was one of his living authorities. Were there two Johns at Ephesus? Or was there only one? Or, if there was only one, was he John the Evangelist, or only John the Presbyter? Here there is every possible variety of opinion. Many hold that there were two, and many that there was only one. Many who hold that there was only one, hold that the one was John the son of Zebedee; others hold, with equal assurance, that he was a distinct person. Obviously, it is impossible to discuss the question adequately here. After due consideration, we lean to the conclusion that there was only one John at Ephesus, and he the son of Zebedee. For the proof of this, impossible within our limits, we refer to the learned argument of John Chapman, in his work John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911).

2. Characteristic Traditions:

Into the traditions which cluster round John in Ephesus it is not necessary to enter in detail (compare Godet, op. cit., 57 ff). According to the tradition universally accepted in the church, John survived till the time of Trajan (98 AD). Striking and characteristic things are told of him in harmony with the touches we find in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of his rushing forth from the bath when Cerinthus, the heretic, entered it (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii. 3, 4) recalls the characteristics of him whom Jesus called son of thunder. The same tone of exclusiveness, modified by larger experience, is found in the 1st Epistle, which so frequently and so decisively discriminates between those who believe in Jesus and those who do not.

IV. The Character of John.

The general character of this great apostle is already sufficiently apparent. While we recall the illustrative facts found in the Synoptics, that James and John were the two who wished to call down fire from heaven on the inhospitable village, that John was one of those who desired one of the chief places in the kingdom, that he it was who forbade the man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus because he followed not with them, we do not forget that on each of these occasions he was corrected and rebuked by the Master, and he was not the kind of man who could not profit by the rebuke of Jesus. So that vehemence of disposition was held in check, and, while still in existence, was under control, and allowed to have vent only on occasions when it was permissible, and even necessary. So in his writings, and in the reflections in the Gospel, we note the vehemence displayed, but now directed only against those who refused to believe in, and to acknowledge, Jesus.

A quiet and thoughtful temperament is by no means inconsistent with a certain vehemence, when, on occasions, the pent-up fire flashes forth; indeed, the very violence of feeling may help to foster an habitual quietude, lest word or deed should betray too deep an emotion. Then it is not without significance that, in the three narratives which are cited from the Gospels to prove the overbearing temper of John, we are expressly told that Jesus corrected him. Are we to suppose that these rebukes made no impression? Is it not more likely that they sank deep into his heart, and that the agony of beholding his Master’s crucifixion made them ineffaceable? Then, if not before, began that long development which changed the youthful son of thunder into the aged apostle of love (Drummond, op. cit, 410, 411).

But love itself has its side of vehemence, and the intensity of love toward a person or a cause may be measured by the intensity of aversion and of hatred toward their contradictories. There are many reflections in the Gospel and in the Epistles which display this energy of hatred toward the work of the devil, and toward those dispositions which are under the influence of the father of lies. We simply notice these, for they prove that the fervent youth who was devoted to his Master carried with him to the end the same disposition which was characteristic of him from the beginning.

Literature.

In addition to books mentioned in article, see the list of works appended to article on JOHN, GOSPEL OF.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

John the Apostle

Son of Zebedee, and brother of James. James and John were fishermen, but when the Lord called them, they forsook all and followed Him. The Lord surnamed them BOANERGES, ‘sons of thunder.’

John, Peter, and James were the three selected to be with the Lord on the mount of transfiguration, and in the garden of Gethsemane. In the Acts of the Apostles John was with Peter when the lame man was healed, and they were both cast into prison. They boldly declared that they could not but speak the things they had seen and heard. John was associated with Peter in visiting the Samaritans, who had received the word preached by Philip, and through the laying on of their hands the Holy Spirit was given. Acts 8.

John was one of the apostles at Jerusalem who, when Paul went thither, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go to the heathen. Gal 2:9. He was afterwards banished to the Isle of Patmos, probably under the emperor Nero or Domitian; it is not known with certainty which, nor at what date. There he had the visions recorded in the Revelation. He also wrote the Gospel and the three Epistles bearing his name, which are generally judged to have been written after the other Gospels and Epistles.

John in his gospel calls himself ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved;’ at the last Passover he leaned upon the bosom of Jesus, and to his care did the Lord when on the cross commend His mother.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

John the Apostle

John the Apostle. The son of Zebedee and Salome, of Bethsaida. His father was able to have “hired servants” and bis mother was one of the women who aided in Jesus’ support, Luk 8:3, and took spices to embalm his body. Mar 16:1. He is regarded as the youngest of the twelve apostles, but had been a disciple of John the Baptist, who pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God to him. Joh 1:35-37. John is noted as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and as one of the three chosen to witness the restoration of Jairus’ daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony in the garden. At the last supper he reclined on Jesus’ bosom, and to his care Jesus on the cross committed his mother. He with Peter on the resurrection morn ran to the empty tomb of Jesus, and “he saw and believed.” When with some others he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee, he was the first to recognize the Lord standing on the shore. After the ascension, he and James and Peter were the leading apostles, Gal 2:9, of the infant church, and guided its counsels. He was banished for a time to the isle of Patmos. Tradition represents him as closing his career at Ephesus. He was naturally bold and severe. Our Lord called him a “son of thunder,” but he became amiable though firm and fearless.

John, Gospel of. The fourth Gospel is ascribed to John, and was probably composed, or at least put in its present shape, at Ephesus, between a.d. 70 and 95. The particular design of it is expressed by the author to be that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, we might have life through his name. Joh 20:31. Hence the subjects and discourses of this book have special relation to our Lord’s character and offices, and are evidently intended to prove his nature, authority, and doctrines as divine. The gospel contains: A. The prologue, 1:1-18; B. The history, 1:19 to chap. 21. 1. The preparation for Jesus’ public ministry, (a) by Joh 1:19-36; (b) by the choice of disciples. 1:37-51. 2. The public labors of Jesus in doctrine and miracle, chaps. 2-12. 3. Jesus in the private circle of his disciples. Chaps. 13-17. 4. The history of the passion and resurrection or public glorification of the Lord. Chaps. 18-21. “The Gospel of John is,” says Schaff, “the gospel of gospels. It is the most remarkable as well as most important literary production ever composed…. It is a marvel even in the marvellous Book of books. It is the most spiritual and ideal of gospels. It brings us, as it were, into the immediate presence of Jesus. It gives us the clearest view of his incarnate divinity and his perfect humanity.”

John, the Epistles of, are three in number. They were written in Ephesus, between a.d. 80 and 95, or possibly later. The first has always been attributed to John, though his name is neither prefixed nor subscribed. It is a kind of practical application of the gospel. It is addressed to Christians. The second epistle is addressed to the “elect lady and her children.” The elect lady is supposed to have been some honorable woman distinguished for piety, and well known in the churches as a disciple of Christ. Some, however, have thought some particular church and its members might be denoted. Those who adopt the latter opinion apply the term to the church at Jerusalem, and the term “elect sister,” 2Jn 1:13, to the church at Ephesus. The third epistle, which is addressed to Gaius, or Caius, a private individual, and is commendatory of his piety, was written about the same time with the others.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

John, The Apostle

John, The Apostle. John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee, and of Salome, and brother of James, also an apostle. Peter and James and John come within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends; but to John belongs the distinction of being the disciple whom Jesus loved. He hardly sustains the popular notion, fostered by the received types of Christian art, of a nature gentle, yielding, feminine. The name Boanerges, Mar 3:17, implies a vehemence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who had it the might of Sons of Thunder. See James.

The three are with our Lord when none else are, in the chamber of death, Mar 5:37, in the glory of the transfiguration, Mat 17:1, when he forewarns them, of the destruction of the Holy City, Mar 13:3, in the agony of Gethsemane. When the betrayal is accomplished, Peter and John follow afar off. Joh 18:15.

The personal acquaintance which existed between John and Caiaphas, enables him to gain access to the council chamber, praetorium of the Roman procurator. Joh 18:16; Joh 18:19; Joh 18:28. Thence, he follows to the place of crucifixion, and the Teacher leaves to him, the duty of becoming a son to the mother, who is left desolate. Joh 19:26-27.

It is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene first runs, with the tidings of the emptied sepulchre, Joh 20:2, they are the first to go together, to see what the strange words meant, John running on most eagerly to the rock-tomb; Peter, the least restrained by awe, the first to enter in and look. Joh 20:4-6. For at least eight days, they continue in Jerusalem. Joh 20:26. Later, on the Sea of Galilee, John is the first to recognize, in the dim form seen in the morning twilight, the presence of his risen Lord; Peter, the first to plunge into the water, and swim toward the shore, where he stood calling to them. Joh 21:7.

The last words of John’s Gospel reveal to us, the deep affection which united the two friends. The history of the Acts shows the same union. They are together at the ascension on the Day of Pentecost. Together, they enter the Temple as worshippers, Act 3:1, and protest against the threats of the Sanhedrin. Act 4:13. The persecution which was pushed on, by Saul of Tarsus did not drive John from his post. Act 8:1.

Fifteen years after St. Paul’s first visit, he was still at Jerusalem, and helped to take part in the settlement of the great controversy, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. Act 15:6. His subsequent history, we know only by tradition. There can be no doubt that he removed from Jerusalem, and settled at Ephesus, though at what time is uncertain.

Tradition goes on to relate that, in the persecution under Domitian, he is taken to Rome, and there, by his boldness, though not by death, gains the crown of martyrdom. The boiling oil into which he is thrown has no power to hurt him. He is then sent to labor in the mines, and Patmos is the place of his exile.

The accession of Nerva frees him from danger, and he returns to Ephesus. Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture, rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it, range from A.D. 89 to A.D. 120.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary